Political Philosophy discussion

[Pepo]

In my experience there are far more anti-vaxxers and other medicine deniers on the right than on the left. Don't confuse skeptism of corporations with actual science denial.

I wasn't confusing things: I know people on the left that claim that vaccines give autism, and I wouldn't say that they are a minority. As I said, it also depends on the context, and is probably true that with the current covid-19 denial insanity being promoted by reference figures on the rigth, the scale has tipped to them, I don't think it has to do with the condition of being religious or not, but rather what worldview, or more importantly, spirit, they live their life on.

How so? Rationality is far more provable than any god. What kind of belief is necessary to believe in that?

I think post-modernism, despite the flaws it has, does a really good job of showing that universal truths that we consider objective are context dependent. I'm not going to enter on the topic, but gender is a hotly debated topic because, from my point of view, it is a clash of beliefs. To give a more concrete example, our social structure rest on a series of beliefs that are instrumental for his continued existence. While people can claim that the free market is rational, or that work is required for obtaining one substance, or that democracy is a superior form of government, in each case there are acts of faith maintaining this propositions. Even natural science sometimes rest on beliefs, like in medicine were most organizations still use a categorical race structure that doesn't correlate to genetic structures as someone would expect from it, or in the pandemic context, the faith placed by the institutions that the vaccine would end it, despite a lack of evidence that it would happen (simply put, it is impossible to know how it will actually end).

And to clarify, I am against the idea of rationality as understood in a modern sense. I do believe that what we call reason is just an ideal form. Why can we be so sure that religion is irrational, when religion itself comes from the use of reason itself? Doesn't the existence of god(s) or spirits require an Interpretative analysis Of the reality we live in to arrive to that conclusion? Reason as a concept is time dependent. When Descartes affirms "I think, therefore I'am" , it previously required a leap of faith in the form of believing that god is good. While now the whole reasoning would be considered irrational, at the time that belief was considered to be a universal truth. I do not believe that we can escape from believe, it just takes different forms.

 

[jatkinson]

Nope the "vaccines give autism" emerged from the Daily Mail (one of the most right wing publications in the UK where I live), and trust me when I say the vast majority of people who believe this are right wing. The anti-vaxxer movement has always been majority right wing, I'm not denying that some idiots are on the left but they are far from the majority.

 

[Toffer90]

@Pepo: Just want to point out the sophism (-esqueness) of your last post, in a way you are saying irrationality doesn't exist (which makes the word useless, and your argument somewhat meaningless).
I would say putting too much stock in any belief, is irrational.
e.g. All political correctness hysteria is a result of irrationality, one is discarding rationality when going fundamentalist into believing one knows the truth in this matter, and anyone who disagree is either immoral or ignorant, this without even attempting to see things in perspective.
Same can be said about religiousness, when it is not kept private, keeping it private is a sign of rationality (even though I see religion as something irrational, one can be rational in other regards), e.g. if I believe there's a gnome in my sofa, who speaks truth to me, as long as I don't bother others with it, and never act on any "truth" it gives me, then I would be rational about my irrationality (I might be in need of treatment ;p, but at least I'm not ruled by my irrationality).

Edit: Sure, everyone believes stuff, a belief is not irrational in itself.
Unflinching belief, what often is called faith, is something that cannot efficiently be challenged with rationality, that is where irrationality enters the picture.

 

[Yudishtira]

@Pepo: Just want to point out the sophism of your last post, in a way you are saying irrationality doesn't exist (which makes the word useless, and your argument somewhat meaningless), while I would say putting too much stock in any belief, is irrational.
e.g. All political correctness hysteria is a result of irrationality, one is discarding rationality when going fundamentalist into believing one knows the truth in this matter, and anyone who disagree is either immoral or ignorant, this without even attempting to see things in perspective.
Same can be said about religiousness, when it is not kept private, keeping it private is a sign of rationality (even though I see religion as something irrational, one can be rational in other regards), e.g. if I believe there's a gnome in my sofa, who speaks truth to me, as long as I don't bother others with it, and never act on any "truth" it gives me, then I would be rational about my irrationality (I might be in need of treatment ;p, but at least I'm not ruled by my irrationality).

Edit: Sure, everyone believes stuff, a belief is not irrational in itself.
Unflinching belief is what is called faith, and is something that cannot efficiently be challenged with rationality, that is where irrationality enters the picture.

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them."

I know God exists, to me it's rational. I don't accept that this knowledge is objectively irrational. I know some things about God too, which you might consider irrational, but not so. I recommend the belief in God, and leave the rest to you.

I have been contemptuous of all religion in the recent past. I was mistaken. Religion has clearly done some good. What do you think of Chartres Cathedral, or Angkor Wat or Sagrada Familia? What does "scientism" think of them?

 

[Toffer90]

What do you think of Chartres Cathedral, or Angkor Wat or Sagrada Familia? What does "scientism" think of them?

... Impressive constructions... historical value...
Don't really see the relevance though, are you trying to say irreligious people are incapable of great art, by pointing at great art made by religious people?

 

[raxo2222]

I have been contemptuous of all religion in the recent past. I was mistaken. Religion has clearly done some good. What do you think of Chartres Cathedral, or Angkor Wat or Sagrada Familia? What does "scientism" think of them?

Of course religious people are capable of being good.
You can be good or evil despite your faith or lack of it.
Also you don't need to believe in God or some form of spirituality to be good at art

As for scientism... explain me how we got electricity, cars and computers among other things, if it wasn't for math/physics?
God loves playing Civilization

 

[Pepo]

@Pepo: Just want to point out the sophism (-esqueness) of your last post, in a way you are saying irrationality doesn't exist (which makes the word useless, and your argument somewhat meaningless).
I would say putting too much stock in any belief, is irrational.
e.g. All political correctness hysteria is a result of irrationality, one is discarding rationality when going fundamentalist into believing one knows the truth in this matter, and anyone who disagree is either immoral or ignorant, this without even attempting to see things in perspective.
Same can be said about religiousness, when it is not kept private, keeping it private is a sign of rationality (even though I see religion as something irrational, one can be rational in other regards), e.g. if I believe there's a gnome in my sofa, who speaks truth to me, as long as I don't bother others with it, and never act on any "truth" it gives me, then I would be rational about my irrationality (I might be in need of treatment ;p, but at least I'm not ruled by my irrationality).

Edit: Sure, everyone believes stuff, a belief is not irrational in itself.
Unflinching belief, what often is called faith, is something that cannot efficiently be challenged with rationality, that is where irrationality enters the picture.

I mean , a forum is not the best place to debate philosophy, and I do know that I'm taking things for granted in regard to my explanation, so the sophism accusation may not be misplaced. However, what I was pointing at is that reason is context dependent, and as such, "irrational " behaviors are a matter of perspective, depending on what is understood by reason at that time by that society. I do not enter into why do people believe something or the other because honestly I don't know, however i'am sure that religion comes from the use of reason because there is no other way that an ideal figure like god is created. Gods and religion aren't natural elements, despite claims of the opposite, but rather come from the use of reason to explain the world. Of course in the current era we can consider it irrational, but only if we believe that our current rationality is, well, rational in an objective manner. That in itself is a circular argument, so I prefer to think that reason is a process, and that it can't be universally objective.

 

[Joij21]

Gods and religion aren't natural elements, despite claims of the opposite, but rather come from the use of reason to explain the world.

They don't come from reason. They come from faith, which is the irrational belief of believing in something in which there is no evidence to support existing. Quite the opposite of reason.

Of course in the current era we can consider it irrational, but only if we believe that our current rationality is, well, rational in an objective manner.

Ok this is where your wrong. Reason hasn't changed, it's not flexible like that. It is by definition using physical material evidence in order to make conclusions of the world around us. There is nothing irrational about that.

While people can claim that the free market is rational, or that work is required for obtaining one substance, or that democracy is a superior form of government, in each case there are acts of faith maintaining this propositions. Even natural science sometimes rest on beliefs, like in medicine were most organizations still use a categorical race structure that doesn't correlate to genetic structures as someone would expect from it, or in the pandemic context, the faith placed by the institutions that the vaccine would end it, despite a lack of evidence that it would happen (simply put, it is impossible to know how it will actually end).

You're just cherry picking examples that have nothing to do with actual reason, but rather political beliefs. Most political beliefs are not examples of reason, unless they were derived from rational analysis and conclusion. This is simply a false equivalence you are making, confusing beliefs with reason and then claiming reason is no different then belief.

 

[Thunderbrd]

They don't come from reason. They come from faith, which is the irrational belief of believing in something in which there is no evidence to support existing. Quite the opposite of reason.

Belief in them may come from a willingness to accept that belief as fact, which would be faith. However, the conclusion of the possibility, even likelihood of their existence, must come from the evidence one has on hand that they have experienced throughout their lives, and in many cases, despite your personal experiences perhaps lacking similar events to present such evidence, many can claim highly conclusive experiences show strong cause to believe. If one believes, yet retains the willingness to keep an open mind, it is not so different to the scientist who has come to the rational conclusions that the scientific method has led their peers and themselves to rely on, but even then, being convinced of something, even a scientific conclusion, is still a faith based conclusion to trust that the evidence was truly conclusive.

It is by definition using physical material evidence in order to make conclusions of the world around us. There is nothing irrational about that.

I would think it a little sorrowful if you haven't had any personal experiences that would give you a physical sense of evidence in a higher power. One may not be able to create a 'test' that proves it, for it is indeed an elusive thing to nail down, perhaps because we're trying to prove a deity that wishes not to be proven, but it still plays peek-a-boo with likelihoods in a very frequent sense, leading one to realize now and then, there's no way all of this happens in just this way without that storyteller being behind the curtain pulling strings. I suppose its easy to put all that in a sense of denial by simply saying even the most unlikely things will happen now and then, but it's always seemed interesting to me that those who are seeking a deeper connection with the divine will find these highly unlikely circumstances taking place far more often than one who would prefer to think a divine source does not exist. To me, this is even more evidence - that divine source tends to want you to play this game however you really want to play it.

And why wouldn't it? It IS you after all. If it would do anything, you'd think it would respect its own desire and will in every form it incarnates - as much as it can. I find that a fairly rational conclusion that answers to the evidence I've experienced so far.

 

[Pepo]

Ok this is where your wrong. Reason hasn't changed, it's not flexible like that. It is by definition using physical material evidence in order to make conclusions of the world around us. There is nothing irrational about that

And that's exactly what I'm referring to,because to say that reason is inflexible, you can't proof it with material evidence, because the concept of reason is an idea. The only way that the stament "reason hasn't changed" is correct would be if it was a biological property. However it is very easy to see that the reason used on theology is not the same as the one used by Kant. If we define reason as the faculty to think in a logical form, as opposed to emotions,sensation or perception, then I don't think it is crazy to say that the logic of thinking changes with the time. I would go even a step further and say that reason is not independent from sensations and emotions as claimed by Hume, so reasonable though varies even within a person depending of his/her situation.

 

[raxo2222]

I would think it a little sorrowful if you haven't had any personal experiences that would give you a physical sense of evidence in a higher power. One may not be able to create a 'test' that proves it, for it is indeed an elusive thing to nail down, perhaps because we're trying to prove a deity that wishes not to be proven, but it still plays peek-a-boo with likelihoods in a very frequent sense, leading one to realize now and then, there's no way all of this happens in just this way without that storyteller being behind the curtain pulling strings. I suppose its easy to put all that in a sense of denial by simply saying even the most unlikely things will happen now and then, but it's always seemed interesting to me that those who are seeking a deeper connection with the divine will find these highly unlikely circumstances taking place far more often than one who would prefer to think a divine source does not exist. To me, this is even more evidence - that divine source tends to want you to play this game however you really want to play it.

And why wouldn't it? It IS you after all. If it would do anything, you'd think it would respect its own desire and will in every form it incarnates - as much as it can. I find that a fairly rational conclusion that answers to the evidence I've experienced so far.

Didn't our ancestors invent spirits and gods to explain stuff, that they couldn't understand?
Also rare coincidences still happen, just rarely.

If you treat every event with chance of one per million or less as Act of God, then you will experience such events from time to time.

Fun fact: You wouldn't be too far out there, if you treated Sun as god

What if I build computer capable of simulating universe using best physics model of reality we currently know, and I get intelligent life in my simulation?
Would I be God according to them, especially if I messed with them from time to time?

If He exists, he is programmer, who doesn't care about morality, He also doesn't interfere with free will of beings in simulation.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Didn't our ancestors invent spirits and gods to explain stuff, that they couldn't understand?

Maybe. Probably. WE do this ourselves in ways all the time. However, they might have also, in their innocence of the world, been exposed to things we haven't. It is possible that belief itself guides reality so much that by believing in a more spiritual reality, the world one lives in becomes one, or exposes the side of itself that is one. And by believing in a reality more devoid of spirituality, we experience one that seems as if such spirituality does not exist. The witches and mages of the world insist that the magic only works if you believe it does and they understand that as part of the science of it. The physicists of the world are grappling with the idea that some experiments seem to react to the innate biases of the observer so as to support those biases, with conclusive and properly measured data supporting those conclusions. Not in all areas of study perhaps, but the deeper and more subtle ones for sure. It's making pinning down a unified field theory very difficult.

Also rare coincidences still happen, just rarely.

If you treat every event with chance of one per million or less as Act of God, then you will experience such events from time to time.

Sure but... sometimes things happen that are so rare they shouldn't have happened at all. And this happens more often than it should as well. For one personal example, I moved from Redding California when I was 13 to North Idaho with my parents. 8 years later I'm getting out of the military and coming back to live with my Dad in North Idaho. I get a job and within a week at the job a new hire shows up. We start talking and I find out she's recently moved from Redding herself. I ask her if she knows a few random names of people I grew up with in that city of a few hundred thousand people, some 400 miles away. The first few names I ask she perks her ears at and gets a confused look on her face and says she knows those guys and goes way back with them. Says she grew up with them. I'm thinking, how could she have done that when I grew up with them myself - they were friends from my neighborhood I knew for the 6 yrs I lived there. Turns out it was her family that bought our house when we moved and she not only knew them, she had been the next recipient to live in the room I spent 6 yrs in as a kid and yeah, she knew my childhood friends with about the same familiarity I had with them and I'd never heard of her until that day.

It didn't lead to anything profound - perhaps it should've but I missed whatever it was that should've come of it - but was one of numerous similar events that are so unlikely as to be 1 out of trillions that something like that would take place.

The story of how I met my current wife is a similar one of unlikely patterns. And speaking of patterns, there's a lot more to be said about how interestingly unlike a random series of events one's life can take when you look at what their parents experienced and see numerous overlapping themes and storylines emerging.

If you treat every event with chance of one per million or less as Act of God, then you will experience such events from time to time.

Yeah, that's the interesting point though - you CAN choose to see it that way if you wish. And it also seems like those who wish to don't experience these odd happenings so much either. Most heavily religious practitioners feel like they were selected and guided to be who and where they are.

Fun fact: You wouldn't be too far out there, if you treated Sun as god

Well, in a scientific way it is even. We already officially recognize it as the energy source of most life on the planet and the creative core of our solar system. If we were to find it was intelligent, it would make the ancients that worshipped the orb as a deity rather accurate wouldn't it?

What if I build computer capable of simulating universe using best physics model of reality we currently know, and I get intelligent life in my simulation?
Would I be God according to them, especially if I messed with them from time to time?

Well sure and really that's part of the overarching theory - that bottom up intelligence leads to the natural eventual formation of top down collective and self-aware intelligence that can then manipulate the system. Would you as a programmer be the God in this situation, sure absolutely, and yes, you'd usually allow things to go according to the ongoing flow of cause and effect. But to make things even more interesting, you might tamper here and there. As may the intellects that develop within the system decide to tamper with things now and then.

And that's pretty much what the 'evidence' seems to suggest we have here, is a world where that's the underlying story - all of that is happening and is happening with the infrequency necessary for most to refuse to believe when someone deals with things that go beyond the normal cause and effect realm we operate in.

We tend to forget WE are capable of twisting that cause and effect ourselves - this I think is what is really meant by being 'made in God's image'.

 

[Joij21]

And that's exactly what I'm referring to,because to say that reason is inflexible, you can't proof it with material evidence, because the concept of reason is an idea. The only way that the stament "reason hasn't changed" is correct would be if it was a biological property. However it is very easy to see that the reason used on theology is not the same as the one used by Kant. If we define reason as the faculty to think in a logical form, as opposed to emotions,sensation or perception, then I don't think it is crazy to say that the logic of thinking changes with the time. I would go even a step further and say that reason is not independent from sensations and emotions as claimed by Hume, so reasonable though varies even within a person depending of his/her situation.

Reason as we know it is based on the scientific method. The scientific method does not use beliefs or faith to come to conclusions on what are facts and myths. This has been the same since the enlightenment, the method has barely changed.

Belief in them may come from a willingness to accept that belief as fact, which would be faith. However, the conclusion of the possibility, even likelihood of their existence, must come from the evidence one has on hand that they have experienced throughout their lives, and in many cases, despite your personal experiences perhaps lacking similar events to present such evidence, many can claim highly conclusive experiences show strong cause to believe. If one believes, yet retains the willingness to keep an open mind, it is not so different to the scientist who has come to the rational conclusions that the scientific method has led their peers and themselves to rely on, but even then, being convinced of something, even a scientific conclusion, is still a faith based conclusion to trust that the evidence was truly conclusive.

I would think it a little sorrowful if you haven't had any personal experiences that would give you a physical sense of evidence in a higher power. One may not be able to create a 'test' that proves it, for it is indeed an elusive thing to nail down, perhaps because we're trying to prove a deity that wishes not to be proven, but it still plays peek-a-boo with likelihoods in a very frequent sense, leading one to realize now and then, there's no way all of this happens in just this way without that storyteller being behind the curtain pulling strings. I suppose its easy to put all that in a sense of denial by simply saying even the most unlikely things will happen now and then, but it's always seemed interesting to me that those who are seeking a deeper connection with the divine will find these highly unlikely circumstances taking place far more often than one who would prefer to think a divine source does not exist. To me, this is even more evidence - that divine source tends to want you to play this game however you really want to play it.

And why wouldn't it? It IS you after all. If it would do anything, you'd think it would respect its own desire and will in every form it incarnates - as much as it can. I find that a fairly rational conclusion that answers to the evidence I've experienced so far.

Belief in them may come from a willingness to accept that belief as fact, which would be faith. However, the conclusion of the possibility, even likelihood of their existence, must come from the evidence one has on hand that they have experienced throughout their lives, and in many cases, despite your personal experiences perhaps lacking similar events to present such evidence, many can claim highly conclusive experiences show strong cause to believe. If one believes, yet retains the willingness to keep an open mind, it is not so different to the scientist who has come to the rational conclusions that the scientific method has led their peers and themselves to rely on, but even then, being convinced of something, even a scientific conclusion, is still a faith based conclusion to trust that the evidence was truly conclusive.

None of that is reason. Using personal experience as a method to discern fact from fiction is antithetical to the scientific method. Humans simply are not reliable enough to use personal testimony of something having actually happened. Personal experience differs between various peoples and many such experiences can be explained away as mental illness or illusions caused by our instincts messing around with what we've seen. Only if the observations are consistent and the same, is when personal experience gains validity. But even then such testimony is still dubious and that is the reason why personal testimony isn't taken as seriously anymore in a court of law. In order to truly verify, an experiment must be conducted were physical evidence can be presented on some kind of camera or device that proves what all the people are seeing is truly real. Otherwise the are lying, crazy, or misinterpreting things in the eyes of science.

 

[Pepo]

Reason as we know it is based on the scientific method. The scientific method does not use beliefs or faith to come to conclusions on what are facts and myths. This has been the same since the enlightenment, the method has barely changed.

Ehmmm, no, modern reason is based on the ideas of the enlightenment, but not on the scientific method. The scientific method is exactly what the name implies, a methodology, but reason in the modern sense is based on the works of Kant, Voltaire and other philosophers, which didn't employ it , and wouldn't have been able to employ it anyways as the object of study is quite different.

 

[Joij21]

Ehmmm, no, modern reason is based on the ideas of the enlightenment, but not on the scientific method. The scientific method is exactly what the name implies, a methodology, but reason in the modern sense is based on the works of Kant, Voltaire and other philosophers, which didn't employ it , and wouldn't have been able to employ it anyways as the object of study is quite different.

Well in the contemporary era, the scientific method is the current reason. Therefore it is irrefutable.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Reason as we know it is based on the scientific method.

I'm going to disagree here. Scientific method follows logical reasoning but is not the definition of it. Reason is simply a pathway to logical deduction. And while one person's reasoning can invite critique from another, it's not necessary for everyone to agree on what we believe to understand we've each come to our own rational conclusions by process of reasoning. Even an 'insane' person who has had a completely self-generated illusory experience, still has followed a process of reason to attempt to understand what that experience was, how it took place, and what it meant. By following someone's logic, one can often point out flaws in their reasoning, but not being able to replicate a personal experience with a replicable experience does NOT automatically invalidate another person's experience, nor the implications of that experience. Whether someone can be believed or not is a judgement call by each individual observer upon hearing of the experience, and that is based on a process of reasoning that includes a judgement call on the nature of the person as known so far.

I'd be more inclined to believe someone I've known my whole life than a bag lady telling me something incredulous, for example. One might also be a LOT more inclined to believe THEMSELVES as a witness to their OWN experiences than anyone else can be expected to be. This too, is quite reasonable.

That is all PART of the process of 'reason'. Scientific method may tell you to eliminate everything you cannot replicate with an independent test, but that's going to cut you out of a LOT of truth because not all truths CAN be replicated with such reliance. That should be a reasonable statement to conclude I'd think. It's also within the scientific method to maintain doubt on EVERYTHING, including that which you could independently confirm and replicate.

 

[Yudishtira]

Well in the contemporary era, the scientific method is the current reason. Therefore it is irrefutable.

In other words, you are religious and believe in a God, but you call "him" "the scientific method".

 

[raxo2222]

In other words, you are religious and believe in a God, but you call "him" "the scientific method".

If He exists, He's programmer after all
He would enjoy playing C2C.

He wrote some overcomplicated laws, that we try to approximate
Things vastly accelerated after this "Scientific Method" tech was researched.

Now comrade, do you want to replace most of jobs with robots (Switch workforce civic from Capitalist to Automated)?

By the way fictional universes like MCU is God having way too much fun

 

[Yudishtira]

The scientific method is a method for trying to ensure that the body of scientific knowledge is only arrived at using reason. It rejects all that is irrational, but it weeds out much that is rational too. To avoid keeping any bathwater, it throws out most of the baby as well. As a species, we're a bit over it...

 

[Pepo]

Well in the contemporary era, the scientific method is the current reason. Therefore it is irrefutable.

You know that you are basically proving my point, regarding the Scientific Method as the current reason in this era, implying that it is time dependent. Also it being irrefutable is a believe not an objective proof. Regardless, the causality is the opposite: modern reason elevates the scientific method above everything else and not the other way around.